TSL Professional Services

Transcription

1 Report For: Laboratory #: Edgeway Drive, ALLENDALE, MI, USA Report Date: December 21, Received Date: November 3, 2005 Phone: Fax: Customer P.O. #: COD Attention: Specimen: Nancy Spooner & Richard Schroetenboer Polypropylene Decking & Dock System Material TEST REPORT RE: TESTING OF POLYPROPYLENE DECKING & DOCK SYSTEM MATERIAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION On October 20, 2005 submitted TREDZ Polypropylene Decking & Dock System material to Cambridge Materials Testing Limited (CMTL) for physical property testing. The submitted material was tested using the following test methods: - Coefficient of Linear Expansion as per ASTM D Creep - Recovery Test as per ASTM D Section and ASTM D (Method A) - Izod Impact Test as per ASTM D Flexural Property Testing as per ASTM D (Method A) - Clip Pull-Though Resistance Test as per ASTM D (2000)-Modified - Lateral Clip Resistance Test as per ASTM D (2000)-Modified The following results were obtained: This report is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. This report relates only to the specimen provided and there is no representation or warranty that it applies to similar substances or materials or the bulk of which the specimen is a part. 2. The content of this report is for the information of the customer identified above only and it shall not be reprinted, published or disclosed to any other party except in full. Prior written consent from Cambridge Materials Testing Limited is required. 3. The name Cambridge Materials Testing Limited shall not be used in connection with the specimen reported on or any substance or materials similar to that specimen without the prior written consent of Cambridge Materials Testing Limited. 4. Neither Cambridge Materials Testing Limited nor any of its employees shall be responsible or held liable for any claims, loss or damages arising in consequence of reliance on this report or any default, error or omission in its preparation or the tests conducted. 5. Specimens are retained 6 months, test reports and test data are retained 7 years from date of final test report and then disposed of, unless instructed otherwise in writing. Page 1 of 10

2 2.0 COEFFICIENT OF LINEAR THERMAL EXPANSION TSL Professional Services Specimens were tested to determine Coefficient of Linear Expansion (Thermal) in accordance with ASTM D They were prepared from the polypropylene Decking and Dock System Material by milling to finished dimensions of approximately 2 x 0.5 x inches. Two specimens were prepared with the specimen length parallel to the length of the deck board and two specimens were prepared with the specimen length perpendicular to the length of the deck board. The specimens were conditioned for a minimum of 40 hours at 23 ± 2 C and 50 ± 5% relative humidity prior to testing. Direction Trial Temperature Range Coefficient of Linear ( F) Thermal Expansion Parallel to Decking Material Length A to 87.8 to x F B to 88.2 to x F Perpendicular to Decking Material A to 87.8 to x F Length B to 88.7 to x F Page 2 of 10

3 3.0 CREEP- RECOVERY Ten specimens were tested to determine Creep Recovery in accordance with ASTM D , Section and ASTM D using a 16 inch support span and load of 200 psf. The loading noses and supports were aligned so that the axes of the cylindrical surfaces were parallel and the load span was one-third of the support span. The load was applied for 24 hours and the specimens were allowed to recover with no superimposed load for an additional 24 hours. A calibrated dial gauge was secured under the deck boards and the deflection at the mid-span was recorded four times: (1) prior to the application of load, (2) at 24 hour with load on, (3) within one minute after the load is removed, and (4) after the 24 hour recovery period. The percent recovery was calculated as follows: Total Deflection = (2) Deflection at 24h with load on (1) Deflection prior to application the of load Recovered Deflection = Total Deflection (4) Deflection at the end of the 24h recovery period Percent Recovery = Recovered Deflection x 100 Total Deflection Direction Deflection (inches) Board 1 Board 2 Board 3 Board 4 Board 5 Total Deflection Recovered Deflection Percent Recovery 84% 83% 85% 85% 84% Direction Deflection (inches) Board 6 Board 7 Board 8 Board 9 Board 10 Total Deflection Recovered Deflection Percent Recovery 84% 87% 80% 84% 84% Page 3 of 10

4 4.0 IMPACT RESISTANCE NOTCHED IZOD Five specimens were machined and notched by Cambridge Materials Testing to ASTM D specifications. The specimens were prepared with the specimen length parallel to the length of the deck board. They were tested for Izod Impact testing in accordance with ASTM D256-05, Method A using a 2 ft lbf pendulum. The specimens were conditioned a minimum of 40 hours at 23 ± 2 C and 50 ± 5% R.H. prior to testing. Depth Under Notch (mm) Width Along Notch (mm) Impact Resistance (J/m) Type of Failure Complete Break Complete Break Complete Break Complete Break Complete Break Average = 45.7 J/m Page 4 of 10

5 5.0 FLEXURAL PROPERTY TESTING The baseline flexural properties were determined in accordance with ASTM D , Method A procedures using third point loading. The testing parameters used for all ASTM D tests are outlined below. Testing Position Flatwise Radius of Support Noses 2 Nominal Sample Size 29 x 5.5 x 1.50 Radius of Loading Noses 1 Support Span 24 Distance from Neutral Axis 1.087" Support Span to Depth Ratio 16:1 Testing Machine United SFM20 Testing Speed /minute Operating Software Satec Partner For each flexural test conducted, the operating software recorded the deflection of the deck board at the midspan between the supports and the corresponding load. Five (5) boards were tested at 73+/-3 F. The key properties recorded and calculated for each board sample tested were: Load at Rupture measured in pounds-force (lbf) this property is extrapolated from the load-deflection curve at the point where the board samples reached the maximum load. Load at L/180 measured in pounds-force (lbf) this property is recorded from the load-deflection curve at the deflection corresponding to the support span (L) divided by 180. Modulus of Rupture (MOR) measured in pounds force per square inch (psi) this property is calculated using the following equation: MOR = (Load at Rupture x 24 x Distance from Neutral Axis) (6 x Moment of Inertia) Slope of Tangent measured in lbf/in this property is recorded from the load-deflection curve between the steepest initial portion of the load-deflection curve. Modulus of Elasticity (MOE) measured in pounds force per square inch (psi) this property is calculated using the following equation: MOE = (24 3 x Slope of Tangent to Load-Deflection Curve) (56.25 x Moment of Inertia) Page 5 of 10

6 5.0 FLEXURAL PROPERTY TESTING (Cont d) Board No Load at Rupture (lbf) Load at L/180 (lbf) Slope of Tangent (lbf/in) Average = 180 lbf Average = 95 lbf Average = 461 lbf/in Note: Moment of Inertia must be known to calculate MOR and MOE. This variable can be obtained from UMA Engineering Ltd. Page 6 of 10

7 6.0 DIRECT WITHDRAWAL LOAD TEST Specimens were subjected to a direct withdrawal load test. Each clip was attached to the 1-1/2 wide face of a section of 2 x 6 pressure treated lumber using the JIMDI-supplied #8 X 1-1/4 screws. Two pieces of the JIMDI-supplied plastic decking were slid into each groove of the clip (refer to Figure 1). The maximum force required to either pull the clip from the two pieces of plastic decking or from the pressure treated lumber was measured. The force (F) was applied by pulling on the pressure treated lumber while the plastic decking was secured to the table of the testing machine. Testing was performed according to ASTM D (2000) E1 (modified) with a test speed of 2.5 mm/minute. All materials were conditioned for a minimum of 48 hours at 23 C and 50% RH prior to testing. F Rounded Tab Angled Tab Figure 1 Page 7 of 10

8 6.0 DIRECT WITHDRAWAL LOAD TEST (Cont d) Trial # Maximum Force (lbf) Observations The angled tab on the decking cracked as the clip pulled away The clip pulled away from the angled tab on the decking The angled tab on the decking cracked as the clip pulled away The angled tab on the decking cracked as the clip pulled away The angled tab on the decking cracked as the clip pulled away. Page 8 of 10

9 7.0 LATERAL CLIP RESISTANCE Specimens were subjected to lateral resistance load tests. Each clip was attached to the 1-1/2 wide face of a section of 2 x 6 pressure treated lumber using the JIMDI-supplied #8 X 1-1/4 screws. Testing was performed according to ASTM D (2000) E1 (modified) at a test speed of 2.5 mm/minute. All materials were conditioned for 48 hours at 23 C and 50% RH prior to testing. Test #1 was conducted with the force (F) applied along the tab farthest from the screw hole with the direction of force being away from the screw hole, refer to Figure 1. Test #2 was conducted with the force (F) applied along the tab closest to the screw hole with the direction of force being towards the screw hole, refer to Figure 1. Test #3 was conducted with the force (F) applied along the length of one of the long sides of the clip with the direction of force being parallel to the long direction of the tabs, refer to Figure 1. F Test #1 F Test #3 Test #2 F Figure 1 Page 9 of 10

10 Test #1 Trial # Maximum Force (lbf) Observations Clip bent. Bottom edge of round slot had small cracks across it Clip bent. Bottom edge of round slot cracked all the way across Clip bent. Bottom edge of round slot cracked all the way across Clip bent Clip bent. Bottom edge of round slot had a small crack. Test #2 Trial # Maximum Force (lbf) Observations Clip pulled up away from the board. Crack appeared underneath (on wood side) on the clip Clip pulled up and away from the board Clip pulled up and away from the board Clip pulled up away from the board. Crack appeared underneath (on wood side) on the clip Clip pulled up away from the board. Crack appeared on the inside edge of the clip. Test #3 Trial # Maximum Force (lbf) Observations The screw hole enlarged as the clip and screw were pushed across the wood The screw hole enlarged as the clip and screw were pushed across the wood The screw hole enlarged as the clip and screw were pushed across the wood The screw hole enlarged as the clip and screw were pushed across the wood The screw hole enlarged as the clip and screw were pushed across the wood. Page 10 of 10